Looking at a mate for the PL mount Vespid, the Vespid 25 Mk1 is floating to the top.
The Mk2 24mm is technically better, but if I defuse the whole “better being the enemy of good” thing, is it really that much better than the Mk1 for me?
I have responded very positively to the 40mm, probably better than I would have hoped to the quality of the footage and have to admit that when compared to the Hope glass, there was an honest utility to the Hope’s, but a special something in the Vespid files, that I may be closer to understanding.
In the mix for a New York second was the 7Artisans Infinte (not a typo) 24 for as little 870au, a lens that has reviewed well against the Vespid 2’s and Nisi Athena’s, so likely as good technically as the Mk1’s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm8DhFCR4Vc , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfAsC9-lKcE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTwDUHEwm50 , with a cooler look that matches my favoured glass, but a couple of things came forward that I was sensitive to from previous experience.
The built consistency of 7Art lenses, and this goes for all three sets I have touched on, is mixed. One reviewer praised their Hope 85 for its smooth focus, but said their 25 is a little tight. My 25 is perfect, my 100 is tighter, my 16 (returned) was horrible and the optics were iffy. All the reviewers above of the Infinte range said as much, that they were not consistent in a set or same lens to lens.
Mount tightness is not an issue, the PL-mount will see to that.
They have some other mechanical quirks like oddly placed barrel marking, their weight (1kg+) and filter thread, which seems to be settling on 77mm for me, but the Infinte are 82.
The Vespid is “perfectly” heavy, inertia just right without being cumbersome on my S5 rig (cage, rails, NP battery plate, BMVA 5” and handle). I find movements with this are very steady, something that lighter rigs like with an S-Prime are too light for.
One of the things I have responded to with the Vespid is handling, which seems to be about ideal with the exception of my habit of grabbing the aperture ring by mistake. This is a product of the fairly long barrel, no focus assist and lack of practice (only my third test with the lens) and I do the same with the similarly sized Hopes as well. On the Spectrum, the shorter barrel made finding the aperture ring harder and to its credit, but this is a bit of a lucky dip, the aperture ring is obviously tighter.
The focussing the Spectrum was nice, but not as smooth as the Vespid, sometimes even seeming to “settle” and resist focus pulling after a longer transition.
The second issue is the image. They look more like competition for the cleaner Vespid 2’s or Nisi’s, sharp and contrasty, cool toned and match well with warmer Panasonic cams, but I am maybe after a different look, the Vespid 1 look.
All the files in this post were shot wide open, where the Vespid Mk1’s are weak or if you drink the cool aide, at their most “cinematic”. The file above was bright and clean when opened, I have graded to a punchier look and it was easy with just RAW exposure and curves. What the Vespid manages to do, is add a little something to the file, something I am struggling to define other than to say "more delicate and complicated”. So, where is the image ruining CA, flare and wide open softness?
While these files were loading, it occurred to me to test the Spectrum 50mm in roughly the same (twenty minutes later) morning light. To my eye, the light was much the same, but the results were interesting.
Same grade applied and boy, are these different lenses. Like the Hope glass, the files seem to be simpler, less complicated and perfectly usable, but the feeling of the file, the mind set it creates, is so very different to either the Hopes or Vespid.
I did a little adjusting to even the comparison out (quite a large white balance and tint shift), using only my memory of the Vespid file and ended up here. Still noticeably cooler and more contrasty.
Framing is interesting. In almost every case, I shot further back with the Vespid, a wider lens, I feel and some of this may be evident below, is because there is a more subtle rendering, more fine detail and tonal separation allowing me to shoot wider and pick out details.
The Spectrum seems to make me go in closer and chase the focus point, which is harder as the Vespid has the better close focus. The lens is considerably lighter, but there is more to this I feel.
This is common and something I notice often with different lenses. The Typoch 28 drew me in, the IRIX macro (oddly) seems to push me away from the subject. My S-Primes have a stand-offish feel, the Pana M43 lenses also, the Oly glass tends to push me in.
Every lens is different, they all seem to be trying to tell me something.
The Vespid again, rich colours and depth, strong contrast and maybe micro contrast. Something very right about the file, but notice the weird flare mark on the right from the Neewer ND filter in the matt box. This happened a lot, not sure how or why, as the sun was behind me and hidden?
The Spectrum. If there was ever an argument for keeping several sets of lenses for their different strengths, but matching sets as well, this is it. Same exposure (T2 on this lens), but the light may have been stronger as the false colour was washed out a little and focussing was harder.
Again the Vespid. Rich, deep colour, with delicate detail.
The Spectrum does the same again. A brighter, lighter and simpler file. Nice Bokeh, good sharpness wide open. Bokeh is nicer on the Vespid, but for a sub $500au lens against a lens that launched for $2k, this is pretty respectable.
This file with the Vespid was easy to grade (in fact they all were with a simple “apply grade from previous” and adjust), a little work in curves applied to bring out the pop in the leaf and just a lovely file.
The cooler version from the Spectrum, possible a punchier file, but it took some doing as the initial copy-paste grade was light and flat. Colours are cooler and they also seem to be less nuanced. Bokeh looks to me more ball or cats eye and smears, the Vespid is more complicated and subtle here.
This file is interesting, I was trying to flare the Vespid, which I did, but after a little work, that mostly went away.
The hope file looks duller and cooler, but this is it, same space, same light (slightly different angle) and basically no veiling flare.
I did notice this funky Bokeh though. The Spectrum is a bit of a mystery packer here. Usually quite pleasant it can throw in some wild card stuff.
It looks like I respond to the depth of the Vespids rendering, leaning into the subtle colour and detail on offer.
Same grade on the Spectrum, totally different look. If I go into darker and moodier settings with this lens, I do not respond as well, so I am guessing the micro contrast and more neutral rendering are allowing me more freedom with the Vespid, the Spectrum is more a matter of reacting to what I see.
So far, I can see a valid use case for the Spectrum (simple and more defined rendering and possibly flare prone environments), but in all but one case, I have preferred the Vespid files.
Again darker, looking for small points of contrast. The grade wrote itself, chasing darkness and points of light. I went looking for a single water droplet. The Bokeh is interesting on this one from soap bubble balls, to smeary brush strokes and a little busy in the background.
I feel that losing at there comparisons, the Spectrum files could all do with more aggressive grading, but when I tried, the files were not as deep, not as giving. They wanted a flatter and brighter grade and fought against the alternative. Bokeh is more controlled in this file, but all together less interesting!
So, apart from different looking files, and a different experience overall, the Spectrum 50mm, that cost me under $300au new has a place in my kit because it is different, which is enough. The 35 may be closer in colour, but I am only guessing here.
There is a lot to be said for not mixing glass from different sets. If you do, it is probably best to have a defined and different role for each, like a OSMO or macro lens so the differences are disguised by circumstances.
I will be getting the Vespid 25mm Mk1, because I need to match the 40mm in all ways mechanical and visual, something my other lenses will not do easily. The Mk2’s are great, but I cannot justify the expense or risk achieving an even more jumbled mess, so if I ever go there, it will be another matched set, but I doubt there will be a need.
The Infinte are interesting, but same again and I have a decent showing from the brand, I have pushed my luck enough.
7Artisans make good glass, but seem to struggle with consistency, so if you end up with matching lenses, go you, but it is not guaranteed. For the price, I may go there for an exotic lens like a 16 or 135mm, but then I would have 8 distinct sets represented…….. .
The 25 will provide me with a full frame wide that’s better than the bottom end of a kit zoom, a 40ish focal length in APS-c or 1.8x MFT formats and a nifty fifty on regular MFT. It has a good reputation for sharpness, especially In cropped formats to avoid corner softness and from what I have read and seen, it is a good match for the 40mm.
I just like the ease with which I can capture and grade files like this.
The other thing is, I am sooo sick of thinking about it.
Something I have learned here, something that needs to be shared but is hard to explain, is the difference a lens can make, any lens. You only know by using it, all the videos in the world will nt make this clear to you.
The 40mm Vespid is just right for me, maybe a 25mm will not be, but by sticking to type, I am hoping so.